Skip to main content
6:00 am
united states." "new deal or raw deal." you want to see the future, look at the past. look at the past. woodrow wilson, "the roots of ( inspiring music playing )
6:01 am
6:02 am
6:03 am
6:04 am
6:05 am
6:06 am
6:07 am
someday, cars will be engineered using nanotechnology to convert plants into components. the first-ever hs hybrid. only from lexus.
6:08 am
6:09 am
>> it was the most votes ever against a president's pick for federal reserve chairman, but ben bernanke was confirmed on thursday for a second term at the central bank amid a political revolt some
6:10 am
republicans and some democrats. the vote was in question. when harry reid finally declared support not before extracting what he said were concessions about future fed policy. reid said in a statement last friday, quote, i made it clear to merit confirmation chairman bernanke must redouble his efforts to make sure that families can access the credit they need to buy or keep their homes. he assured me he will outline plans for making that happen and i eagerly await them. now, i called the fed, mary, and asked what's the quid pro quo, is there one? they said no, no plan forth coming, not going to happen. can you remember an incident where a senator claimed to exert such political control over the fed? >> paul, are' telling me that the fed is denying that? i'm surprised. . >> paul: yes. >> you know, this so overtly, probably not, but let's face it, the politicians are always pressuring the fed and that's why the independents fed is considered such an important
6:11 am
thing. i mean shall the problem with bernanke here is that the markets are going to be wondering does this guy have the stomach, the intestinal fortitude to take the punch bowl away when he sees that inflation could be a problem? and i think a lot of people are worried about that and if the fed chairman does not have that credibility, a currency could be in a lot of trouble. >> paul: especially with the interest rates having been near zero now for over a year, the question, that is the question on the markets, but how do you explain this revolt against bernanke in the senate? you've got 30 votes against him, the most ever. voelker in 1984 had only 16 that was the second most and that was after a really, really brutal recession, so, what is this? is this a rank political opportunism by the senators? >> well, if there's a political move to interfere with the fed which will not be healthy, the fed has brought this on itself and in part, there is a big problem with the bailouts
6:12 am
beginning in '08, not being transparent to the american people and there are a lot of senators who were not, before this vote, who were not able to see the memos going back and forth at the fed prior to the decision to bail out aig. >> paul: so this is about transparency and the lack of being able to see what the fed did when and how? >> well, paul, senator john mccain himself used that word explicitly. he said if the fed is going to involve itself this deeply in the economy we're going to need more transparency. we have to understand that looking at some history, from 1933 to 1951 the fed was subordinate to the executive branch, a wholly owned subsidiary. >> a wholly owned subsidiary and a battle in the 1950's between hair i truman and the fed, truman wanted them to monetarize the dead. he got that because harry
6:13 am
trumans was politically weakened. >> paul: everybody was saying only a month ago or two months ago that bernanke and the fed saved the world from great depression, that they'd intervened when they had to. they had to ease money, that was the complaint and that was some of the senators made that argument. >> first of all, everybody wasn't saying that. >> paul: not mary, that's true, that's true, not us, but the popular view. >> i think one thing that concerns some senators is the fact that ben bernanke had never acknowledged the fed's role in 2003 and 2004 in creating the asset bubble. he has never acknowledged the failure of the fed to do its supervisory job and now he wants more regulation and he blames the whole crisis on regulation rather than on monetary policy so this brings up the question of is he the right person because he has so much discretion, i mean, the fed
6:14 am
really operates in a very discretionary manner sore that people making those judgments are important. is he the right guy to make those judgments. >> and the poll tises. >> paul: go ahead, steve. >> there's another issue here, i guess i kind of thought more on the side of wanting more transparency at the fed especially if we look at the mission creep of the fed over the last 18 months. the fed now owns more than a trillion dollars of mortgage-backed securities, is buying up assets. i think the fact that it's taken on such a bigger mission may be suggestive that there should be more congressional oversight and there should be more transparency about the decisions that they're making and the tactf tactful-- that affect every aspect of the economy. >> paul: we need harry reid and talking about money tri policy. is that the way to move or a fast train to argentina. >> look, the fed should have more accountability. maybe we disagree on that. the fact that they've become such an all powerful organization in washington suggests to me the public should
6:15 am
know more about how it operates. >> paul: how about if we have the fed back out of fiscal policy and credit-- >> fiscal policy. >> paul: and back to the mission it did before the last 18 months and focus on monetary policy rather than-- >> i think that the genie is out of the bottle. now that they've taken on the powers i'm not sure they'll go back to the way they used to be. >> paul: the genie back out of the bottle. if this is the case you covered latin america, that's the main problem. >> i'm in favor of stuffing the genie back in the bottle. >> paul: me, too. >> i don't think there's anything to say that we can't tell the fed, you know, this is your job and in fact, as you know, i mean, i think that we should get rid of the dual mandate that the fed has. how can the fed-- >> the dual mon date explain, monetary policy and full employment. >> exactly, how can the fed do both? there are times when, if we had stagflation in the '70s, there are times when pumping more money into the economy is going to create inflation even if you think it's going to solve your
6:16 am
jobs problem short-term. >> paul: we'll watch the genie. when we come back the growing backlash against new york city terror trials. republicans and ayn creasing number of democrats are speaking out against the administration's decision to try 9/11 @
6:17 am
6:18 am
6:19 am
>> my hope is that the attorney general and the president decide to change their mind, but if they don't, we will provide the security that will keep everybody safe. >> paul: that was new york city mayor michael bloomberg backing off his initial support for holding the terror trial of khalid shaikh mohammed and the other september 11th conspirators in lower manhattan. a political backlash has been growing among republicans and an
6:20 am
increasing number of democrats since attorney general eric holder announced the decision late last year. this was word late this week that president obama has asked holder to look for alternative locations. this week new york congressman peter king introduced a bill that would prohibit the use of justice department funds to try the detainees in federal civilian courts and mr. king is the ranking republican on the house committee on homeland security. he joins me now, congressman, welcome. >> thank you, paul. >> paul: so, we got word that the white house is reconsidering holding this trial in manhattan. how do you explain the reversal? >> i think the most honest appraisal is they read the election results in massachusetts. scott brown's own polling showed over 70% of people in massachusetts were opposed to trials being held in the united states. to have the terrorist trials to be held in civilian court. that plus the detroit bombing on christmas day which the administration totally mishandled and has continued to mishandle, i think the democrats
6:21 am
in the congress, you know, are genuinely getting nervous. i thought from day one, i said this was the most irresponsible decision any president ever made to hold these trials in new york city. and democrats were lined up hyped the president almost 100%. it's only in the last week to two weeks that they started to really feel the heat and they've started to read the political tea leaves. so, whatever the reason is whether it's coming out of new york, i don't think it should be in any civilian court in the united states. >> paul: that's a question i want to ask because the president white house spokesman let it be known they want it to be a civilian trial, the marrow posed to it and democratic senators, but maybe somewhere else. you're saying no way, you don't want them to be tried as civilians at all. >> i think it's wrong as a matter of policy. i think it's wrong as a matter of law, but also, i just think it's unfair to impose this burden on any community. i mean, you know, the terror threat, the threats that will
6:22 am
accompany these trials are almost impossible to gauge. that's wherever the trial is held it will end up becoming the main terrorist target in the world. to impose that on a community is totally irresponsible when we have the mechanism in place to try them in a military tribunal, either in a military base in the united states, in some remote area or i believe tried them in guantanamo which is where they really belong. >> paul: well, you have introduced a bill to cut off fund for these civilian trials. lindsey graham, republican senator from south carolina had an amendment on precisely that in the past. it got fewer than 50 votes. do you have any democrats who are joining us in your effort? >> yes, there's a number of democrats and that bill that went down, the amendment by senator graham, that went down in november, i believe. the political climate has changed dramatically since then. in those days the democrats whether at national level or in new york city were marching in lock step with the president and the attorney general. things have changed dramatically
6:23 am
since then. i have no doubt if nancy pelosi and harry reid and certainly nancy pelosi in the house allows it to come to a vote will pass overwhelmingly. probably every republican and large number of democrats. >> paul: how do you respond to the charge at that some would make this would be an unconstitutional infringement on the president's war powers, he has the right under the constitution to name enemy combatants and he needs to be able to decide where and when to try these. congress can't cut off fund. >> you know, it's really ironic for a president who was so reluctant to use the term war and an administration which has been so reluctant to use the word terrorism at that they would be trying to invoke war powers to justify this policy. i believe that's a debate worth having. i believe that when it involves, if it's overseas that's one thing, but we're talking about imposing this type of risk on local governments, on the people of this country, then i believe the congress has the right to speak up and be heard. the same as would in a
6:24 am
declaration of war. >> paul: so it's basically the congress's power of the purse you think gives the right to do that. >> i think the power of the purse supercedes the power of the president, if congress cut off funding he couldn't do it. >> paul: you're saying that democrats could have cut off funding for iraq if they had the votes to do it. >> they certainly tried. we had a number of votes they were trying to cut off funding and we defeated them and so, yes, i think they have the right, it's extreme right to use, but i think in the case such as this, especially where it involves using civilian courts on american territory, that congress has the right to assert itself. >> paul: let me shift briefly to the christmas bomber. what has the white house told you about the interrogation of abdulmutallab which was only 50 minutes and the decision to give him miranda, anything in the press. >> this white house is reluctant to tell you anything involving
6:25 am
the detroit bombing or anything involving terrorism. impossible to get information out and critical of john brennan in the white house and intelligence structure. as best we can term the attorney general, the attorney general himself or someone below him to made the decision to mirandaize. no one saw the this. the national director and counsellor terrorism center and fbi, this was a decision made by and certainly nobody asked janet napolitano in homeland security. this was a decision made by the attorney general's office and a decision which unfortunately is consistent with administration policy. >> paul: all right. congressman, thanks so much for being here, we'll be following this debate. >> thank you. >> paul: we have to take one more break. more break. when we come back ún [ male announcer ] when you look closely
6:26 am
at the mercedes-benz glk... when you study its engineering, its safety systems... and when you consider who will be riding with you... perhaps the question is not so much whether you can afford to drive a vehicle that is built this way... but whether you can afford... not to. he glk. the engineering of mercedes-benz. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for special offers through mercedes-benz financial. ♪
6:27 am
6:28 am
>> time now for our hits and misses of the week, dan. >> paul, a hit to apple computer. other than obama's state of the union speech this week, far and away the biggest news was the news about the introduction of apple's new gadget, the ipad. now, i'm less interested in whether this thing sells than the absolute craziness that surrounded its introduction. apple has become a kind of cult and people lining the streets to buy the iphone. it's clever design, neat marketing and steve jobs himself, the turtle neck, the jeans, the guy is starting to look like a jedi knight. like obi-wan kenobi.
6:29 am
my hat's off to him, it's a cult. >> paul: brilliant marketer. james. >> this is to miss to the government high speed rails, which president obama spent a lot of time this week promoting and as it turns out i've been participating in an ongoing trial of government railroad projects. as a disgruntled passenger on new jersey transit you don't want this nationwide. >> paul: all right, james. steve? >> you know, america's always blamed for being had a stingy country when it comes to foreign aid and that's something that foreigners always say about us, but if you look what's happened in haiti and i'm not talking about government aid, but aid by american, the american people and american companies, paul, over 60 million dollars already in terms of things like flea markets and garage sales and bake sales and dedicating profits, it's going to be over 100 million dollars in the next month. it just goes to prove that americans are the most generous people in the world and i hope those donations keep coming in
6:30 am
because haiti sure needs it. >> paul: thanks, that's it for this week's edition of the journal editorial report, thanks to my panel and all of you, i'm paul gigot, we hop paul gigot, we hop right here next week. captioned by closed captioning services, inc. . >> jon: on fox news watch, there were cheers, silent jeers and a bit of supreme displeasure, how did the media react? what is the state of the president and the press? >> roll out reform and things got off track. >> jon: the government's bungled effort with the underwear bomber gets the spotlight and the white house gets a failing grade when it comes to preventing a terror attack. are the media failing as well? he could have been president, but his dirty secrets were exposed by the press and now, the saga takes a new turn. stay tuned. a stellar athlete with strong faith and convictions stars in a new super bowl ad, but some in the media are calling foul. what could be so wrong? and when it comes to trust,
6:31 am
which news organization wins out? joining us on the panel this week, ellen ratner, talk radio news bureau chief, rich lawrie and jim pinkerton fellow new america foundation and elliss hen kin, i'm jon scott. news watch is on right now. >> unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions, our corporations, our media, and yes, our government, the more the tv pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away. no wonder there's so much cynicism out there. no wonder there's so much disappointment. >> jon: president obama delivering the state of the union wednesday night placing some blame on the media for
6:32 am
americans losing faith in his campaign promise of change. ahead of the speech, some headlines pointed to the president's many challenges. the baltimore sun, for instance, calling attention to his murky message and shrinking public support. the los angeles times pointing to a flawed approach in his handling of a weak economy and the raleigh news and observer on his troubled agenda. after his speech in which he owned up to a few mistakes and took shots at the political process in washington, the headlines and the overall coverage seemed to take a bit softer tone. the philadelphia inquirer has the president seizing the moment. the news and observer again, a humbler obama tries to reconnect and san jose news calls the speech feisty with the president on the defense. let's talk about it, jim, did the president win over the media with the speech? >> he didn't win over katie couric who i thought gave him a very tough interview where she asked, you know, asked did the
6:33 am
administration drop the ball and so and and so on. but i thought the most revealing factoid of the last week was from the center for media and public affairs which concluded, according to the washington times, that obama got more favorable coverage than reagan, clinton and bush 43 put together in their first years. >> jon: what about that moment, elliss, in the speech where the president was lambasting the supreme court for the earlier decision in the week about campaign finance and you catch justice alito seeming to mouth the words "not true". >> not true, not true. >> jon: how was that covered? >> first of all, it's a remarkable moment, right? we expect the political temperament from our politicians and we got that. but we expect judicial temp perpt and i'm afraid he fell short of that. if judges are supposed to keep
6:34 am
their mouths shut. >> he crinkled his nose and moved his lips saying not true. and the fact it, alito was right. and he would have been justified in a full throated "you lie" because president obama was wrong in just about every single aspect of what he said. the decision wasn't a century old they'd tossed out just from 1990 and wrong that it would open a flood gate for foreign money. >> jon: is that getting covered? >> actually it has been covered in several places because one of the news media talked about the white house pushing back on this issue of that, that it was not part of their century old issue and that the white house also pushed back the foreign affairs thing, but my favorite comment was chuck todd on saying that it was the cable moment of zen. and i thought it was. i mean, it was something that-- and then it went on youtube. i mean, it was interesting because one of the outlets, one of the blogging outlets put it
6:35 am
on youtube everywhere and then everybody else saw it so it sort of got-- >> there's part of a trend of big political events is often the stuff that's very minor and doesn't matter so much that gets the attention. the al gore sighs during the debate. >> the joe wilson, you know, a just continue crinkling his nose and-- >> and they've changed. i'm old enough to remember when conservatives were known for good manners. >> oh, elliss, the bad manner is attacking them falsely the way the president did. >> elliss is demagoguing here, but rich makes a good point. if the event was completely scripted and you have the transcript of the speech hours beforehand and everybody's had a chance to twitter out whatever is interesting in it. then the only thing left to cover is the random events that happen by accidents or because the camera is watching everybody in the room like a hawk. >> well, what wasn't covered and i didn't actually see covered was commented on to some degree after it happened, but not really focused on was how many sometimes the republicans did
6:36 am
not get up or didn't get up at all. how many times they might have gotten up under a bush speech and none of that was detail. there's a lot-- i'd say commentary throughout the night about that and it is so boring, so rote, the same thing over and over again and by ten o'clock, now, you can barely keep your eyes open. >> good manners never hurt. >> don't attack the supreme court. >> good manners. >> if we're talking about, if elliss insists on talking character traits, another one oppose today is hipocracy. for obama to get up there and denounce banks and so on and have the hill newspaper reveal that secretary geithner, the treasury department was holding briefings for all of the lobbyists the same time they're being denounced, that was a good scoop by the hill. >> jon: let me play for you, an exchange between diane sawyer and george stephanopoulos and i want your reaction. >> political symbolism in the
6:37 am
wardrobe, the first lady in deep purple and go back to the speaker of the house, nancy mroes aand joe biden wearing a shade of purple. the president has a speech at the center, not red, not blue, purple. i don't think that was entirely by accident. >> really, you think it's that level of cack lays. >> a little bit. >> all right. >> what about that, is that a little bit too much inside fashion. >> not at all. i actually do believe it was fot by accident. they were right to comment on it. particularly last time, nancy pelosi in the fall i guess wore that green which was a disaster and i think that they did color coordinate. there's no, you can't have three people wearing-- >> there was a point about their political strategy. >> absolutely. >> this strikes me as something you got to say something to fill the air. >> or it was an attempt don't ask don't tell policy? >> whoa. >> i don't understand why you turned it ellen on fashion. i thought pinkerton was the fashion person here. >> i just happened to notice that ellen is wearing purple.
6:38 am
>> i'm wearing middle purple. >> going for the mid feel the country. time for a break, first, do you want to hear jim pinkerton unplugged? during the breaks we keep the cameras rolling in the studio, go to our website after the show, news watch. we'll be back in two minutes to talk about coverage of the terrorist. >> what is the nexus of terrorism? >> more missteps by the government in the war on terror and washington's effort to protect us from weapons of mass destruction gets a failing grade. is the press paying attention? plus, john edwards was on the rise setting his sights on the white house until the press popped his bubble and exposed his dirty deeds. score one for the good guys
6:39 am
6:40 am
>> the department of justice, as we learned at our last hearing, unilaterally decided to treat him as a common criminal,
6:41 am
as an american citizen, advise him of his right to remain silent and grant him a lawyer at taxpayer's expense. it is outrageous that our nation's top intelligence officials were never even consulted on this vital decision. >> jon: senator susan collins of maine on homeland security about the failed christmas day plot to blow up a jetliner over michigan. the handling of the aftermath of that case by attorney general eric holder and others in the administration's national security effort causing a stir on capitol hill and getting some play in the press. also getting attention, a new report how prepared we might be for a terror attack with weapons of mass destruction. the administration received a big fat f for its plans for prevent bioterror attack and when it comes to recruiting and training the next generation of national security leaders and
6:42 am
workers, another f. i think that surprised a lot of people when the report cards came out and raised the question is the press doing enough reporting on our preparedness. >> the press is always a little backwards looking. after a bomb explodes in a u.s. city we'll get great coverage of the coverage leading up to it. the story line that he hasn't have been mirandized has been covered by politicians and scott brown in massachusetts with his win. the media did a great tick-tock the last week or so, showing that he was babbling like a kid to everyone that was around him until the decision came down from the justice department to read him his-- to tell him he had a right to remain silent and guess what, he's silent and now it's a major scandal. >> jon: what about the heat eric holder, the attorney general has taken this week, elliss for his decision to put the khalid shaikh mohammed and some of the other 9/11 accused conspirators
6:43 am
on trial in civilian courts. has that-- is that being driven by the press? >> well, it's got a ton of coverage. i don't think there's ever been a venue issue in federal court with quite the coverage. i've noticed as the coverage has gone along, jon, the american people may be getting a little more mature about this. we understand eventually that you know, we want to do the smart stuff to protect us, but frankly there probably isn't anything the government can do to protect us from every single threat. >> the detroit news came out and almost called it a keystone kops. now what was missing, there was no decision tree that was printed. nobody talks about if this happened then the federal government had this decision maker or this decision maker and nobody's really covered that as to how the decisions are made when they have an effect or-- >> well, a whodunit, who in the justice department made the call to mirandize him and shut him up? it's likely eric holder, but it will be-- now you have the press seize of
6:44 am
that kind of whodunit. >> meanwhile, hats off, i think it was to the new york daily news, the first to have the story that the obama administration was to take back their khalid shaikh mohammed trial decision in upstate new york. as i predicted they would on this show late last year. i think the big hinge though for the news coverage was bloomberg. when bloomberg, who it seemed to kind of be for it back when it was first announced changed his mind, reporters who frankly respect him a lot and all want to work for bloomberg news-- >> he has nothing to do with that company anymore. >> when security costs a billion dollars as it's suspected it could, it got the mayor's attention. time for another break, first though if you come across a story in your local paper that you think smacks of media bias, let us know. send us an e-mail at news watch dt, and the were pry the obama administration and
6:45 am
more. >> a presidential wannabe gets sacked by the press for bad behavior and now, more details grab headlines and attention. and plus, will the news media ever have access as promised? >> your question points out to a legitimate mistake that i made. >> details next on news watch. r
6:46 am
6:47 am
6:48 am
>> i would welcome participating in a paternity test, be happy to participate in one. i know it's not possible that this child could be mine. >> two time presidential candidate john edwards during an interview on abc's nightline back in 2008 basically denying that he fathered a child with his mistress rielle hunter. now, fast forward to the cover of people magazine this week.
6:49 am
elizabeth's breaking point. mrs. edwards reportedly had enough. their 28,000 square foot house isn't big enough it seems. the couple reportedly now living apart in separate domiciles. her decision to separate from the former presidential candidate might have something to do with his admission he really is the father of another woman's child and other startling new revelations about john edwards in a new book written by his former aide, andrew young who by the way originally claimed to be the father of that baby. the politician, an insiders account of john edwards' pursuant of the presidency and scandal is due out this week in the book young reveals edwards and his pregnant mistress made a quote, repelling sex tape i guess i never thought we'd be discussing sex tapes on this show, but it raises the question, should the press-- i mean, this is a guy who came within a whisker of vice-president and did pretty well in the presidential sweepstakes, could have been president. should the press have done more digging a year or two or three ago? >> the press, first of all,
6:50 am
andrew brightmark came out and said that the president-- that the inyearer should win a pulitzer, well, i don't know if they should quite win a pulitzer, i want to know why the press didn't do what we actually did under clinton which is to pound away at it and ask him to take a paternity test. >> jon: why do you think they didn't do that. you said you don't know why. anybody want to hazard a guess? >> because he was fighting for the-- >> also nothing by the time we learned the story, he wasn't the president of the united states. >> no, no, no. >> when this story came out. the national enquirer broke this one, it still mattered when he's still a going concern in the democratic primaries and the mainstream press ignored it and now they've left on it when he doesn't matter and say this about the national enquirer, we're about economy and inquiry, they do shoe leather reporter and they nailed this guy. >> that's right, they did a terrific job and deserve credit.
6:51 am
>> jon: here is another question for you or maybe the president? where is the transparency. >> your question points out to a legitimate mistake i made during the course of the year and that is that we had to make so many decisions quickly in a very difficult set of circumstances that after a while we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right. i think the health care debate as it unfolded legitimately raised concerns, not just among my opponents, but also amongst supporters, that we just don't know what's going on. >> jon: well, despite candidate obama's pledge that his administration would be the most transparent ever, there have been more lawsuits against the government for failing to release federal records during president obama's first year in office than there were during each of the last two years under
6:52 am
the bush white house. so we've seen this increase in freedom of information act requests. does that suggest the president is not living up to his transparency promise? >> but john, 25 years as a reporter i've never once met a politician of any party, any who i thought was adequately transparent and i believe that's true of this one as well. >> hats off to ed o'keep in the washington post who took note of the fact that the obama administration was releasing the data bases and stuff and this is the transparency and interviewed people from sun lite foundation and others and said no, this is just junk they're handing out not the real stuff we really want. >> jon: let's move on to another message. super bowl ads when you think of the super bowl you certainly think of the interesting ads like this one from victoria's secret. beer commercials are always present. you can't have a super bowl without cold one, of course. performance enhancers have perform part of the tradition,
6:53 am
interesting to watch those in mixed company and when it comes to positive sports figures, someone you can look up to, well, that list is shrinking. florida gators star quarterback tim tebow should be on the list, an amazing athlete, strong beliefs and convictions and yet, thibeault finds himself surrounded by controversy and negative media coverage over his appearance in an ad. the ad paid for by the group focus on the family. it has a pro family message. the script for the 30 second ad approved by cbs to air during the super bowl. the ad features tim and his mother, rich. i guess you could describe it as pro family and yet, it has raised all kinds of ruckus in the media even before it ran, why? >> it's a heart warming story. i mean, she was urged to get an abortion, advised to get an abortion, didn't and has this wonderful son who one a heisman trophy and is a role model for millions of people. and you have these pro choice groups complaining about it and
6:54 am
it almost makes you think, john, that they're really pro-abortion, that they would object to an ad about a woman having a child. >> wait a minute, my problem is first of all, cbs did not tell anybody that their policy it changed in terms of the kind of ads that would accept and frankly i haven't seen in the media anyplace that outlined the history of the super bowl ads and how they've actually shut out advocacy ads before. nobody-- they said it in one line, but nobody has actually talked about the policy and that's my problem. >> jon: all right, we have to take one more break, when we come back, can you believe the letters you read in your local newspaper? >> when it comes to trusted news reporting, who gets the passing grade? that answer next on news watch.
6:55 am
6:56 am
hi, may i help you? we're shopping for car insurance, and our friends said we should start here. good friends -- we compare our progressive direct rates, apples to apples, against other top companies, to help you get the best price. how do you do that? with a touch of this button. can i try that? [ chuckles ] wow! good luck getting your remote back. it's all right -- i love this channel. shopping less and saving more. now, that's progressive. call or click today.
6:57 am
>> jon: almost no matter when where you are in the country, if you are a fan of the letters to the editor section in the local paper you might have seen this name, ellie light. she sent letters to 69 different publications, praising president obama and stating some version of this quote. the president is being attacked if he promised that our problems would wash off in the morning, henever did. it's times for americans to realize that cofg is hard work and that a president just can't wave a magic wand. cleveland plain dealer gets the credit, he is actually some guy
6:58 am
named winston. letters get into papers without any scrutiny. what about it, rich, should a publisher, editor of a national magazine, should there have been more attention paid, or is it just one of the things that slipped through the cracks? >> it slipped through the cracks. i don't think many news organizations, this is evidence of it, pays much attention to who writes the letters. it's not the most important feature. >> why can't they google the name? >> they are all being laid off. but i think ellie wright had a plan for getting caught. he was planning a book or his life as an imposter. >> if we get rid of all of the investigative people let's not start on the editor's page. >> let's get rid of letters to the editors. >> when it comes to trusting your source of news, polling
6:59 am
shows something interesting. 49% of trust this network, 10 percentage points than any other network. what do you think about that, jim? >> ptp is a democratic polling firm as james, as "time magazine" put it, it speaks for itself. >> he also says he thinks it's bad where journalism is heading. >> you have to say that. >> they like to point out, fox had the vision of taking a certain market which was half the country. the fact is a lot of publishers share the assumptions and biases of the mainstream media. >> 30% of democrats thought fox was more trustworthy than cnn. >> i think it's best explained by the final box, the most trusted news has a new address. >> i want to thank our

The O Reilly Factor
FOX News January 31, 2010 6:00am-7:00am EST

News/Business. Host Bill O'Reilly interviews newsmakers.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 6, Washington 5, New York City 4, John Edwards 4, Paul 4, United States 3, Massachusetts 3, Detroit 3, Obama 3, Harry Reid 3, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 3, Nancy Pelosi 3, Steve 3, Haiti 2, America 2, New York 2, Jim 2, Paul Gigot 2, John 2, Scott Brown 2
Network FOX News
Duration 01:00:00
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 6/26/2011